By Ivan Lyubysh-Kirdey and Anna Voitenko KYIV A man who detonated a explosive device at a court in

Apple is reportedly dropping several new iPads — three to be exact — in the

Elon Musk has attracted the ire of film fans everywhere after making a Blade Runner reference that backfired on him. The Tesla billionaire and owner of Twitter/X made a passing comment about the seminal 80s sci-fi classic directed by Ridley Scott, which was quickly pounced upon by cinephiles on social media. Musk was responding to a clip of Joe Rogan shooting the highly-anticipated Tesla Cybertruck with a bow and arrow – which is one of the stranger moments from Musk’s recent appearance on his podcast this week. Speaking about the vehicle – which Tesla fans have been waiting years for, and is finally being sent out to customers “next month” according to Musk – Musk made reference to the film. “It’s an armored personnel carrier from the future – what Bladerunner would have driven,” he wrote, responding to footage of the moment with Rogan. Referencing a classic sci-fi movie would be no big deal, normally. However, people were quick to point out that the main character played by Harrison Ford was not, in fact, called Bladerunner. Instead, the character was called Rick Deckard – and it left some film fans convinced Musk has never seen the film or he’s misunderstood it. Writing on Twitter/X, one user responded by writing: “Just taking a moment here to appreciate that Elon Musk thinks the main character in Blade Runner is a guy called ‘Bladerunner’”. Another said: “Elon Musk thinks the protagonist from Blade Runner is called ‘Bladerunner’ and also has no f***ing idea what an Armoured Personnel Carrier is.” It comes after Musk appeared on Rogan’s podcast on Tuesday (October 31), which saw Musk kicking off by lighting a cigar and speaking to Rogan, who was wearing a blonde wig and a Puerto Rico shirt throughout the interview to mark Halloween – check out the biggest talking points from the new interview here. Sign up for our free Indy100 weekly newsletter How to join the indy100's free WhatsApp channel Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings

Nintendo is developing a film based on its hugely popular "The Legend of Zelda" franchise, the Japanese gaming giant announced, as it bids to capitalize on the blockbuster...

Dutch batsman Teja Nidamanuru believes it will not be an "upset" if his team defeat Sri Lanka on Saturday and keep alive their bid to...

Priced at $229.99 but available for under $200 if you hunt online retailers, ASRock's B650

Federal Reserve officials are signaling they plan to keep interest rates steady in June while retaining the option

SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov 29, 2023--

Arnold Schwarzenegger won the coveted Mr Olympia title six years in a row, from 1970–75, before retiring and then winning again in 1980

After it was discovered that the OceanGate submersible imploded during its expedition to the Titanic, some have wondered why the Titanic did not reach the same fate when it sank. Last Thursday (June 22), the U.S. Coast Guard had announced that the OceanGate submersible which contained five people, had suffered a "catastrophic implosion" that killed all onboard. Sign up to our free Indy100 weekly newsletter Since learning about the news, some have asked why the sub imploded but the Titanic didn't as it sank. One user took to Twitter to ask the question that was on many minds: Many quickly replied to help explain why the Titanic didn't implode, the answer being that because the Titanic wasn't pressurised, the lack of pressure differential means that the sinking would not result in an implosion. Writing for Northeastern Global News, Arun Bansil, professor of physics, explained that "when a submersible is deep in the ocean it experiences the force on its surface due to water pressure. When this force becomes large than the hull can withstand, the vessel implodes violently." Many also took the opportunity to inform that some parts of the Titanic actually did implode. The stern (the rear) of the ship imploded roughly 60 metres (200 feet) below the surface of the water. Lots of air was trapped in the back of the ship, so when the external pressure got high enough, it imploded. Whereas the air had been released from the front of the ship, which caused the pressure to be equal on the outside and inside, therefore no implosion occurred. As one user explained: Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.

Margot Robbie and "Barbie" garner great reviews, the Northwestern football hazing story gets worse, the Pirates took Paul Skenes No. 1 and more in the Roundup.

USA Basketball is back atop the FIBA men’s world rankings even after failing to medal at the World Cup